If this is your first visit be sure to check out the FAQ. You have to REGISTER before you can post. To start viewing threads, select the forum that you want to visit from the list below.NOTICE: YOUR ACCESS HAS BEEN LIMITED UNTIL YOU REGISTER!

In order to ensure your registration and verification goes smoothly and quickly you should edit your user profile and add some content that verifies your not a robot. Add an avatar or profile image, add some location information, setup your signature, send the admin a quick private message, etc. You can make these changes by clicking on "Settings" in the top right corner of the site. Once inside your personal settings control panel, you can click on edit profile or any of the other options to begin your customizations.

Doing this will help the forum moderators verify your registration and allow you access to the entire forum.If you refuse to do this or take steps to verify your humanity, there is a very good chance your account will be deleted instead of verified.Users that look suspicious or have suspicious email addresses and users with no profile information will be deleted without warning.

It really is all about the art of the possible, and without better insight into what was possible, and needing something, it is hard to say what money was left on the table, so to speak, what prospects there may have been to get it with a bit more negotiating (with economic terrorists, remember), or the pros and cons of not getting any deal, in the interests of ideological purity.

However, Lawrence O'Donnell made the point that the Democrats set the $200 to $250k income point for the top bracket to kick in, as of 20 years ago. Putting this point into 2012 US dollars, that threshold would be, he says, $396k (approx. $400k). This has been a common sense objection to the rate increases starting at $250k for a lot of otherwise sensible people. Because even in 1990, people earning that amount of money were not necessarily rich at all. Now, that's even less true, and people know it. That was the reason for the Plan B's set point of $1 million a year in income-- EVERYONE basically agreed that was a level of income that was indeed synonymous with being rich.

Negotiations require a trade-off-- you cannot get everything you wanted. Obama also wanted an extension of the UE compensation, which he got for another year (or two?). He wanted to avoid the contractionary effects of spending cuts. Those were staved off, with no particular extra cuts. The sequester got put off, if only for some months.

Obviously, compared to a perfect negotiation, he fell short. In the realm of the practical and possible, it's far from obvious what more could have been gotten.

Good post Sofla,

All in all, I think the president is doing pretty well, given he has to deal with a bunch of irrational, corrupt obstructionist one trick ponies to get anything done.

Also, his approvals are far, far better than the Repiglicans, which are the lowest ever recorded in history.

I fully support President Obama. I can't think of a president since Roosevelt, who has faced so many obsticles and disasters, all at one time. That said, it doesn't mean that I approve of every single decision, either.